Learning Theory

• Dollard & Miller proposed that caregiver infant attachment can be explained by learning theory. Cupboard love approach emphasises the importance of the atlachment figure as a provider of food.
• Classical Conditioning 1/2

  Classical Condioning involves associating 2 stimuli together so that we respond to one the same way we respond to the other. Here, food serves as an unconditioned stimulus. Being fed gives us pleasure which is an unconditioned response - we don't have to learn that. A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus, something that produces no response.
• Classical Conditioning 2/2

  When the caregiver provides food, the baby starts to associate the caregiver with food. When the baby sees the caregiver they expect food - the neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus. As conditioning takes place, the sight of the caregiver produces a conditioned response(pleasure ). To a learning theorist this conditioned pleasure response is love; an attachment is formed & the caregiver becomes an attachment figure.
• Operant conditioning 1/2

  Operant conditioning involves learning from consequences of behaviour. If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, it’s likely to be repeated (reinforced). If a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence (punishment) its less likely to be repeated. Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort - an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying leads to a response from the caregiver - feeding, comfort. As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced.
• Operant Conditioning 2/2

  The baby directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting social suppressor behaviour. The reinforcement is a two way process. As the baby is crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement; the crying stops (escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing). This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
• Attachment as a secondary drive

  Learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction. Hunger can be thought of as a primary drive - its innate, a biological motivator. We’re motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive. Sears suggested that as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive.
• Counter evidence from animal studies

  -One limitation of learning theory explanations of attachment is lack of support from animal studies. Lorenz's geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether the object was associated with food. Harlow's research also shows food is of no importance. Harlow's moneys displayed attachment behaviour towards the cloth mother in preference to a wire mother which provided milk. This shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments.
• Some conditioning may be involved

  +One strength of LT is that elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment. It seems unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment, conditioning may still play a role. A baby may associate feeling warm & comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, this may influence the baby's choice of their main attachment figure. This means that LT may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments.
• +- Both classical & operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a relatively passive role in attachment theory development, responding to associations with comfort or reward. Research shows that babies take on a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment (Feldman & Eidelman). This means that conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment.
• Counter evidence from studies on humans

  -Another limitation of LT explanations for attachment is lack of support from studies on human babies. Schaffer + Emerson found that babies tended to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them. In another study Isabella found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment. These factors aren't related to feeding. This suggests that food, isn’t the main factor in the formation of human attachments.